Ok so alot of people have raised their concern about
1 - the interpretation of the 2012 selection policy regards GBR Team pre selection 2013.
The crux being Dave and Rich have been selected for a class in which they did not medal.
- this seems against the intended spirit of the policy, but to stress this a little further
this would infer Tim and Ettine could succesfully receive preselection for K1M or C1M, depending on their whim when they filled in the form.
- in future with gender equality obviously being something that GB as a LEAD nation take seriously, would the C1W and K1W get the same luxury. If mallory or Kimberley win a C1W medal do they automatically make the team in both the following year?
2 - the international panel is not comprised of an appropriate group of individuals.
It is not the integrity of the individual's that should be in question, but because general opinion/common sense decides these decisions are made which appear to have a bias, questions are obviously raised about the individual panel members motives.
(For Information: Every school in the UK has a board of governors, this consists of 1head teacher, 1staff representative, and ~6-10 non-teaching board members. Thus decisions on pay, conditions, workload, facilities, services, can all be made; based on the advice of the government, and information from the school faculty/Admin leaders)
These governors are voted into position by members of the institutions they represent, thus they are held accountable by the individual's within that organisation.
It appears somewhat strange then that we have an International Panel which makes equally vital decisions for the individual's within the sport, that is comprised almost entirely of people that have not been voted for by a majority. Infact with no disrespect intended, I was unaware I had ever voted for Anne Hounslow to be Chair Person, and probably inreality I still have not. And Interestingly regardless of how good or badly she does her job, i have no power to appose her decision to stand again as chairperson should I decide I need too, (i actually feel in the Main Anne does a very good job for our sport) but the point being the first I know of this decision or sny opportunity to counter it is after it is decided and is in her own chair persons report.
Not to single out one person on the Panel, John Anderson is the head of GB Canoeing, they are yet to recieve their funding allotment but the cost of athletes is a very real reason to try to limit or control the number of people that they must support for the following year. Thus there is a possible bias to the selection process at every level.
Andy Maddock has a similarly high role with in GB Canoeing, he is equally trying to hang medals around necks. Inorder to maintain UK Sport funding, they must have identified individuals and supported them before they win, to justify GB Canoeings role. Thus there is a bias as he tries to maintain the number of GB Canoeing athletes in GBR Team places.
Jurg Gotz has not been well, and not voted in this second round of decision making, but as Head Coach at GB Canoeing and someone who's pay is assumably also performance linked, and who will have strongly encouraged doubling up before the Olympics and afterwards, his Athletes are GB Canoeing Athletes, thus there is a bias to reward athletes who are successful for him in his role and position within GB Canoeing.
In my opinion this does not bring into question their integrity as people or individuals, but simply their roles within the sport cannot put them in an appropriate position to make decisions without bias. Regardless of the outcome, it can be interpreted that they made one decision because they were biased, or they made the opposite decision because they didn't want to appear biased. Thus we have an inappropriate group of people that comprise the International Panel.
I would like to point out there is a paddler rep, who is nominated to represent the paddlers, but he/she has NO vote under normal circumstances.
Solution: GB Canoeing currently write the selection policy, amazingly this year it was put out for serious review, excellent step forward. But the writer of policy should have NO voting rights else it leads to the possibility of leaving in loop holes, caveats, or rewording the policy after consultation, which is happening I'm sure as we speak to the 2013 policy. What should happen is the person who rights the policy, be an advisor in the process.
GB Canoeing should also provide an advisor for the process. Someone who represents the athletes they would like the international panel to consider. They can put forward however strong or weak case they want, but their comments are taken into consideration by the international panel when the IP make decisions.
Now on to the IP, whom should this consist of...
The paddler rep, who represents all paddlers both in GB and outside of it.
The chair of the slalom committee (in most cases this seems an appropriate person, though I still refer to my comments above) next the chair/head coach of the SCA, the chair/head coach of the WCA and lastly the chair/head coach of ECSC. These 5 people/organisations all represent the individuals from across the UK, they therefore hold GB canoeing to account for the Policy, and athletes selection. it may be appropriate to also include two further non-sport related proffesionals (perhaps a suitable UK sport representative or EIS or BOA or SIS, to the IP, to ensure the sport is held to account for its actions.
These 7people, on the advise of GB canoeing, interpret the policy as is written, based on the facts in front of them conclude, and convey their decisions to the slalom community.
Are the ECSC/WCA/SCA/BCU Slalom Committee going to step up and acknowledge they are yet to hold GB Canoeing to account, and suggest that this can not be a battle left to the 10 individuals in the sport that this effects in 2012. But that these organisations will unite and initiate their own enquiry to determine an appropriate solution, for the short term 2013 pre-selection (this maybe supporting legal action/or it maybe detailing discussions had with IP and their support of the IP decision) and the long term issue, resolving the possibility for discrimination and bias by the IP based on positions of responsibility with in the sport, in personal, proffesional and policy writing capacities.
Let's use this as a platform to move our sport forward, out of the dark ages, and into a new light, with a new legacy of openness and opportunities of success for all.
Robin Vasey
PS on a final note; I do not think the decision to have Dave or Rich in the team, is that shocking. Had they been asked to they are both likely to have qualified a place in their own right. In which case this decision seems unnecessary, if however they are unable to make the team in 2013 (6months from now) are they really worthy of representing GBR, when there is someone better or faster having to watch from the bank.
![Embarassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)